Deterrence in the Media Age - Security, Discourse and Public Opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the public opinion literatures have been extensively developed over the last decades, its influence on deterrence received little attention. While some scholars, especially formal model ones, address the related issues of deterrence credibility and audience costs, the deterrence literature remains disproportionately focused on the beliefs, agenda and statements of political leaders. We argue that not only incorporating the public opinion dimension into the study of deterrence helps to explain some of the mechanisms through which credible threats are communicated, but it helps to better explain why “threat” is so publically communicated. In this paper we aim to fill the theoretical gap created by the state and elite centered nature of deterrence studies. As we will argue, integrating public influence on state policy into the study of deterrence provides a richer analysis that better captures the dynamics of threat communication, formation and interpretation. Such acknowledgment illuminates important processes that concern some dynamics within the challenger, the defender as well as the interactions between these actors in the media age and even the international public opinion. In this respect, we contend that an approach that is more attentive to the way public opinion shapes (and is affected) by political decisions helps to better explain deterrence failure and success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".